마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment by the court below is too unfair because the punishment imposed by the court below (an additional collection of KRW 1 year and six months, confiscation, and KRW 203,00,00) is too unreasonable (the defendant explicitly withdraws the argument of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the third trial date at the trial at the trial at the court of the first instance). 2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment by the court of the first instance, and the sentencing of the first trial does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first trial sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from sentencing by destroying the judgment of the court of the first instance on the ground that the sentence of the first trial falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, but only because it is somewhat different from the opinion of the court of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).
However, each of the crimes of this case is deemed to have committed each of the crimes of this case even though the defendant had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the same drug crime, and the risk of recidivism is high in light of the records of such crimes, in light of the frequency of the crime and the quantity of the penphone in possession (4.85g and 4.95g).
Considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the fact that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of, in particular, during the same repeated crime period, there is no change in the circumstances that could change the punishment of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because its punishment is too large.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.